| Previous Part of This Section | Top of This Section | Next Section
H. Decommissioning Debacle Bibliography

(July 21, 1997). DOE says remedies for missing waste deadline lie in disposal contracts. Hazardous Waste Litigation Reporter. pg. 32612.

Brack, H.G. (1986). A review of radiological surveillance reports of waste effluents in marine pathways at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company at Wiscasset, Maine -- 1970-1984: An annotated bibliography. Pennywheel Press, Hulls Cove, ME. Hess, C.T. and Bernhardt, G.P. (March 1997). A radiological survey of the area surrounding the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant. University of Maine. Hess, C.T. and Smith, C.W. (1983). Radionuclide concentrations in estuarine sediments: Comparison of measured and calculated values. In: Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. III. Park, P.K., Kester, D.R., Duedill, I.W. and Ketchum, B.H. Eds. Wiley Interscience. pg. 269-285. Holt, Maria and King, Elisabeth. (May 1999). Monitoring Maine Yankee II: Report of the Citizens' Monitoring Network 1988-1998. Citizens' Monitoring Network a subcommittee of Safe Power for Maine, Bath, ME. Joint Select Committee to Oversee Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. (January 1998). Maine Yankee study. Final report of the Joint Select Committee to Oversee Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, State of Maine, 118th Legislature, First Regular and Special Sessions. Lockbaum, David A. (April 2, 1998). Potential nuclear safety hazard: Reactor operation with failed fuel cladding. Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, DC. Lutze, W. and Ewing, R.C. (1988). Radioactive waste forms for the future. Elsevier Science. pp. 778. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. (April 7, 1998). Trash sorting allegation investigation report. Prepared for the Community Advisory Panel, MYAPC, Wiscasset, ME. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. (October, 1997). Decommissioning cost analysis for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station. Document No. M01-1258-002, prepared for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company by TLG Services, Inc., Bridgewater, CT. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. (October, 1997). Site characterization management plan. Prepared by GTS Duratek, Inc., for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. (April 1998). GTS Duratek characterization survey report for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant, revision 1. Nine volume report prepared by GTS Duratek, Inc. for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant, Wiscasset, ME. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. (April 16, 1998). Appendix A: Spent fuel and other radioactive material stored in the Maine Yankee spent fuel pool. MYPS-101, Rev. 0. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Wiscasset, ME. Minns, J.L. and Masnik, M.T. (April 1998). Staff responses to frequently asked questions concerning decommissioning of nuclear power reactors: Draft report for comment. NUREG-1628. Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US NRC, Washington, DC. Rabonivitz, Jonathan. (September 17, 1997). Hartford says utility hid nuclear contamination. New York Times. Rogers, Kenneth C. (August/September 1997). NRC's concerns about electricity restructuring. Electricity Journal. 10(7). pg. 22-26. Smith, Andrew. (August 6, 1997). The leftover of the nuclear age / Roadblock to plan: Designing the casks. Newsday, Nassau and Suffolk Edition. New York, NY. pg. A08. Thompson, Gordon. (October 2002). Robust storage of spent nuclear fuel: An interim report. Institute for Resource and Security Studies, Cambridge, MA. IS. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. (November 9, 2000). State of Maine's motion for emergency stay of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rule approving the NAC-UMS spent nuclear fuel storage system. No. 00-1476. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC. United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (September 15, 1997). Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company: Rebuttal testimony of James K. Joosten. Docket No. ER97-913-000. Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1995). Reassessment of NRC's dollar per person-rem conversion factor policy. NUREG-1530. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (May 5, 1997). 10 CFR 50.72 Event report number 32423. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (June 1997). Decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1067. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (June 30, 1997). Licensee event report (LER) 97-009-00 degraded fuel rods identified in Westinghouse fuel assemblies. LER 50-443/97-009. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (July 1997). Generic environmental impact statement in support of rulemaking on radiological criteria for license termination of NRC-licensed nuclear facilities. NUREG-1496, Vol. 1. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (July 25, 1997). Shipment of decommissioned reactor vessel, containing irradiated internals, from the Trojan Nuclear Plant to Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, Washington. SECY-97-164. Memo to The Commissioners from L. Joseph Callan, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (October 29, 1997). Haddam Neck Inspection Report 97-08. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-213/97-08. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (May 20, 1998). Maine Yankee Inspection Report 98-01. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-309/98-01. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (March 1998). Standard review plan for transportation packages for spent nuclear fuel: Draft report for comment. NUREG-1617. Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (April 1998). Standard format and content of license termination plans for nuclear power reactors. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1078. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (August 1998). Draft regulatory guide DG-4006: Demonstrating compliance with the radiological criteria for license termination. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

  • This publication is a follow-up to NUREG-1575, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) as well as NUREG-1505 and 1507.  This publication elaborates "methods acceptable to the NRC staff for demonstrating compliance with the dose criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20" (total effective dose equivalent of 25 mrem/yr to an average member of the critical group) including "methods acceptable to the NRC staff for conducting a final radiation status survey for buildings and soil prior to terminating the license"  and "methods acceptable to the NRC staff to demonstrate that residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are ALARA" (as low as reasonably achievable.) (pg. 2).
  • This publication summarizes the NRC regulatory position as developed in MARSSIM on dose modeling, use of derived concentration guidelines, use of generic screening and use of site-specific information.  "Licensees should justify their pathway models and justify the elimination of pathways from dose assessments." (pg. 4).
  • Particularly revealing is the following paragraph pertaining to methods for conducting a final status survey.  "The final status survey is the radiation survey performed after an area has been fully characterized, remediation has been completed, and the licensee believes that the area is ready to be released.  The purpose of the final status survey is to demonstrate that the area meets the radiological criteria for license termination.  The final status survey is not conducted for the purpose of locating residual radioactivity; the historical site assessment and the characterization survey perform that function."  (pg. 5).  [Editors note - baloney:  no adequate historical site assessment or characterization survey exists at any NRC licensed reactor.]
  • The size of the survey units suggested by MARSSIM provide the licensee with wide leeway in averaging concentrations of residual radioactivity over areas up to 10,000 m2.
  • Table 2.1. Suggested Survey Unit Areas (MARSSIM, Roadmap Table 1).
    Class
    Suggested Survey Unit Area
    Structures - floor area
    Land
    1
    up to 100 m2
    up to 2000 m2
    2
    100 to 1000 m2
    2000 to 10,000 m2
    3
    no limit
    no limit
  • "Class 1 Areas:  ...impacted areas that, prior to remediation, are expected to have concentrations of residual radioactivity that exceed the DCGLW. (DCGLW is defined in the MARSSIM (Ref. 3).)"
  • "Class 2 Areas:  ...impacted areas that, prior to remediation, are not likely to have concentrations of residual radioactivity that exceed the DCGLW."
  • "Class 3 Areas:  ...impacted areas that have a low probability of containing residual radioactivity." (pg. 6, 7).
  • An explicit re-affirmation of the federally sponsored evasion of documentation of the environmental impact of NRC licensed nuclear reactors.  Since these guidelines allow survey units of up to 10,000 m2 of "remediated" contamination (read:  covered over with 6 - 36 inches of uncontaminated topsoil) and utilize surveys for surface contamination only (rather than detailed spectroanalyses of biological media), nuclear leaks and discharges of every size and description and the resultant residual radioactivity can be present in virtually any quantity and compliance can still be demonstrated by these contrivances for evasion (NREG-1575, MARSSIM and associated NRC guidelines such as 4006).
  • Bogus regulatory guidelines essentially written by and for an industry and its government sponsors, which, in order to survive, must evade the documentation of the environmental impact of reactor operations and decommissioning.  There is no alternative to these evasions, which have now been institutionalized in MARSSIM and the license termination process.  Billions of dollars in licensee profits are at stake and depend on the continued success of this evasion.
  • You may post comments on this draft at the NRC Technical Conference Forum.
  • United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (October 8, 1998). Maine Yankee notice of violation. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.  http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/my100898.htm. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (August 2, 1999). Degraded fuel rods identified in Westinghouse fuel assemblies. Supplemental LER 50-443/97-009-01. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (January 28, 2000). Maine Yankee inspection report 50-309/99-03. U.S. NRC, Washington, DC. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (February 2001). Technical study of spent fuel pool accident risk at decommissioning nuclear power plants. NUREG-1738.U.S. NRC, Washington, DC. Many other citations of NRC publications are found in RAD 11 Part 4: Anthropogenic Radioactivity: Nuclear Power Plants.

    | Top of This Section | Next Section |

    | Index | Introduction | Guide | Accidents | Definitions | Radionuclides | Protection Guidelines | Plumes | Baseline Data | Dietary Intake | Chernobyl | Source Points | Maine Yankee | Links | Bibliography | Alerts | Sponsor |